COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Lithuania, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 515 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The Lithuanian justice system continues to have good results in terms of efficiency, although 
new challenges regarding the increasing disposition time and cases backlogs are emerging. A 
new development programme of the justice system aims to further improve the efficiency of 
the  system,  and  discussions  are  ongoing  regarding  the  criteria  for  allocating  the  budget  to 
courts.  Procedural  legislation  is  being  adapted  to  ensure  the  use  of  digital  tools,  which 
continues to be widespread. Delays in appointments to high judicial positions persist, and the 
President of the Supreme Court remains in function ad interim since September 2019. There 
are concerns regarding the transparency of the selection procedure for judicial functions, and 
there are calls  to  bring  it in line with European standards.  Initiatives to  strengthen the anti-
corruption  culture  in  the  judiciary  continue  to  be  implemented.  Changes  to  the  legal  aid 
system remain under preparation, while the low remuneration currently provided to lawyers 
may act as a deterrent to their participation. 

The  new  Anti-Corruption  Agenda  of  2022-2033  has  been  adopted.  The  new  amendment  to 
the Law on the prevention of corruption entered into force on 1 January 2022, broadening its 
scope  to  include  state-owned  enterprises  and  their  subsidiaries.  The  Special  Investigation 
Service  continues  to  regularly  monitor  and  assess  the  public  procurement  sector,  which 
remains  at  high-risk  of  corruption.  The  register  for  private  interests  became  operational  in 
January 2021 and contributes to  increased transparency in  the public sector.  In parallel,  the 
rules on lobbying adopted in January 2021  as well as the ‘revolving doors’ and cooling off 
period provisions adopted in July 2020 are achieving their objectives. Efforts to improve the 
capacities  of  the  Asset  Recovery  Division  are  ongoing.  A  new  legal  framework  on 
whistleblower protection adopted in  December 2021 actively supports the investigation and 
prosecution of corruption-related offences.  

The  legal  framework  for  media  pluralism  and  freedom  in  Lithuania  guarantees  the 
fundamental right of freedom of expression and the right to information. Following a public 
debate,  legislation  is  in  preparation  to  improve  the  effectiveness  and  impartiality  of  media 
self-regulatory bodies. To strengthen media ownership transparency, the Ministry of Culture 
has  launched  a  publicly  available  Information  System  of  Producers  and  Disseminators  of 
Public  Information.  The  authorities  have  taken  steps  to  alleviate  the  financial  burden  on 
audiovisual media and radio service providers. The professional environment for journalists 
is  largely  safe  in  Lithuania,  although  online  threats  against  journalists  remain  an  issue. 
Legislative changes to tackle abusive litigation have been prepared. There are concerns that 
the  authorities’  interpretation  of  data  protection  rules  has  led  to  restrictions  on  access  to 
information, in particular by journalists, and efforts are being undertaken to resolve the issue.  

Legislative  amendments  to  the  Law  on  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons  are  under 
discussion,  where  concerns  have  been  voiced  over  a  possible  impact  on  the  effective 
functioning  of  that  institution.  There  are  also  concerns  regarding  the  adequacy  of  the 
resources  allocated  to  the  institution.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  been  called  to  review 
emergency  measures  adopted  in  the  context  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  A  state  of 
emergency was declared in November 2021 in response to the instrumentalisation of migrants 
by Belarus, under which certain restrictions to rights apply. Civil society space remains open, 
and the new NGO fund has launched its first funding programmes. 

1 

 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended to Lithuania to:  

  Continue  the  reform  of  the  legal  aid  system,  including  by  ensuring  adequate  conditions 
for  the  participation  of  legal  aid  providers,  taking  into  account  European  standards  on 
legal aid. 

  Proceed with the appointments to ensure the full composition of the Supreme Court and 

 

with the appointment of the President of the Supreme Court. 
Initiate  a  process  in  view  of  adapting  the  system  of  appointments  to  judicial  positions, 
notably to the Supreme Court, including to improve transparency and taking into account 
European standards on judicial appointments. 

  Start implementing the anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033. 
  Continue improving the practice of granting access to official documents, in particular by 
making sure that the grounds for rejection of disclosure requests are not  used to unduly 
limit access, including by journalists, taking into account European standards on access to 
official documents. 

  Provide adequate human and financial resources for the functioning of the Office of the 
Parliamentary Ombudspersons, taking into account European standards on resources for 
Ombudsinstitutions and the UN Paris Principles. 

2 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  justice  system  is  composed  of  the  Constitutional  Court1,  courts  of  general  jurisdiction 
(the  Supreme  Court,  the  Court  of  Appeal,  regional  courts  and  district  courts)  and  courts  of 
special  jurisdiction  (the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  and  two  regional  administrative 
courts). The judges of the Supreme Court, as well as its President chosen from among them, 
shall be appointed and released by the Parliament (Seimas) upon submission by the President 
of  the  Republic.  The  judges  of  the  Court  of  Appeal,  as  well  as  its  President  chosen  from 
among  them,  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  upon  the  assent  of  the 
Parliament.  The  judges  and  presidents  of  district,  regional,  and  specialised  courts  shall  be 
appointed,  and  their  places  of  work  shall  be  changed,  by  the  President  of  the  Republic. 
Judicial Council. The Judicial Council, entirely composed of judges appointed by their peers, 
is the executive body of judicial self-governance, and ensures the independence of courts and 
judges2. The Judicial Council shall advise the President of the Republic on the appointment, 
promotion,  and  transfer  of  judges,  or  their  release  from  duties.  The  National  Courts 
Administration, which is independent from the executive, is competent for providing material 
and technical support to the courts, ensuring the efficient functioning of the court system and 
the training of judges. Prosecutors are independent; the Prosecutor General is appointed and 
dismissed by the President of the Republic upon the assent of the Parliament3. Lower-ranked 
prosecutors are appointed by the Prosecutor General, on the recommendation of a Selection 
Commission4. Lithuania participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). The 
Bar Association is an independent part of the legal system and is financed from contributions 
paid by advocates and from other sources. 

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Lithuania  continues  to  be  average 
among  the  general  public  and  high  among  companies.  Overall,  52%  of  the  general 
population and 61% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to 
be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20225. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the 
perceived  judicial  independence  among  the  general  public  has  decreased  slightly  in 
comparison with 2021 (55%), inverting a previously increasing trend. The perceived judicial 
independence  among  companies  has  confirmed  its  positive  trend,  further  consolidating  in 
comparison with 2021 (60%), and now well above the level in 2016 (48%). 

The  delay  in  the  appointment  of  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  continues.  The 
appointment  of  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  pending  since  September  20196,  and 
further delays are possible. Although the President of the Republic announced the opening of 
the selection procedure for the position of President of the Supreme Court on 10 September 

1   The  Constitutional  Court  is  composed  of  nine  judges,  appointed  by  Parliament,  from  among  candidates 
presented by the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Parliament, and the President of the Supreme 
Court. 

2   Law on Courts, Art. 119. 
3   Deputy Prosecutors General are appointed and dismissed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of 

the Prosecutor General. 

4   Law on the amendment of the law on the prosecutor’s office, No. I-599, of 13 October 1994, Arts. 22 and 

26. 

5   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

6   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 2. 

3 

 
                                                 
2020,  the  procedure  remains  in  standstill.  The  reason  is  that,  according  to  the  Constitution, 
the President of the Supreme Court can only be  appointed once the full  composition  of the 
Supreme  Court  is  ensured7  -  which  has  not  been  the  case  since  2019.  Following  the 
appointment of a new judge to the Supreme Court on 31 March 2022, one vacancy remains 
open, for which the selection procedure is ongoing8. The law does not regulate the deadlines 
in selection procedure and gives discretion to the President of the Republic when to announce 
selection  procedures  to  judicial  positions  in  the  Supreme  Court9.  Stakeholders  have  raised 
concerns regarding the existence of repeated delays in appointments of judges to the Supreme 
Court10, as well as regarding the very lengthy procedures11. The President remains in function 
ad  interim12,  and  although  it  appears  that  this  circumstance  has  so  far  not  affected  the 
functioning  of  the  Supreme  Court13,  it  is  important  to  proceed  with  the  appointment 
procedure.  As  recalled  by  the  Venice  Commission,  the  existence  of  anti-deadlock 
mechanisms, such as continuation in function ad interim, in order to ensure the functioning of 
state institutions, should not act as a disincentive to reaching an agreement14. 

Stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  regarding  the  selection  procedure  for  judicial 
functions.  In  2021,  the  National  Courts  Administration  (NCA)  established  a  ‘Study  on 
Judges’  Selection  and  Evaluation’,  on  the  basis  of  which  recommendations  for  the 
improvement  of  the  current  selection  process  were  prepared.  The  new  selection  and 
evaluation model is being used for all newly launched selection procedures since 1 January 
202215. In parallel, the President of the Republic submitted draft amendments to the Law on 
Courts  to  Parliament,  proposing  changes  to  the  procedure  for  the  selection  of  judges. 
However,  stakeholders  have  signalled  that  the  proposed  amendments  do  not  address 
longstanding issues, such as the discretion conferred to the President of the Republic not to 
follow the proposal of the Selection Commission of Candidates to Judicial Office regarding 
the  most  suitable  candidates  for  the  respective  position  of  judge,  and  to  appoint  a  different 
candidate16.  In  particular,  stakeholders  have  criticised  the  absence  of  a  legal  provision 
establishing the obligation to motivate this decision17. The Judicial Council has called for the 
amendment to the Law on Courts to clarify these aspects, in order to ensure the transparency 

7   Art. 84, ‘The President […] (11) shall propose candidates for the posts of the justices of the Supreme Court 
for consideration by the Seimas and, upon the appointment of all the justices of the Supreme Court, propose 
the candidate  from among them for the post of the President of the Supreme Court to be appointed by the 
Seimas’. Regarding the standards on procedures for the appointment of Presidents of Supreme Courts, see 
also CCJE, Opinion No. 19(2016), para. 53. 

8   The procedure for the dismissal of another Supreme Court judge due to health reasons has been suspended, 
pending discussion and adoption of Draft  Law  No. XIVP-285(3), amending the  Law on State Pensions of 
Judges. 

9   Input  from  Lithuania  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  3.  See  also  Figure  52,  2021  EU  Justice 

Scoreboard.  

10   Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Administrative  Judges  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

p. 10; Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 6. 
11   Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
12   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 2. 
13   Information received from the Supreme Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
14   Venice Commission Opinion (CDL-AD(2013)028), paras. 5-8. 
15   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4. 
16   Input  from  Lithuania  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  pp.  3-4.  For  an  overview  of  the  selection  and 
appointment  procedures,  see  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in 
Lithuania, p. 2. 

17   Information  received  from  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Lithuania; 
Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Administrative  Judges  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report, 
p. 8; Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 11. 

4 

 
                                                 
of  the  selection  process  and  bring  it  in  line  with  European  standards18.  According  to 
European standards, in cases where the head of state, the government or the legislative power 
takes decisions concerning the selection of judges, an independent  and competent  authority 
drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorised to make recommendations 
or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice19.  

Legislation introduced the possibility for temporary transfers of judges to address  the 
increased  workload  in  asylum  cases.  Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Administrative 
Proceedings  provide  for  a  right  of  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Administrative  Court  to 
redistribute  cases  (including  asylum  and  migration-related  cases)  between  the  regional 
administrative  courts  in  order  to  ensure  a  reasonable  and  equal  workload20.  In  this  context, 
new possibilities for temporary transfers of judges were also introduced21. Whereas the new 
provisions  allow  for  a  transfer  without  consent  of  the  judge  concerned,  this  possibility  is 
limited  to  situations  where  the  Judicial  Council  establishes  the  need  for  the  temporary 
transfer  of  the  judge  to  another  court,  or  to  other  chambers  of  the  same  court  to  which  the 
judge was appointed, in order to ensure their proper operation. The transfer has no negative 
impact  on  remuneration,  must  not  exceed  one  year,  and  cannot  occur  more  frequently  than 
once every three years. When deciding on the transfer of the judge in such cases, the length 
of  service  of  the  judge  being  transferred,  the  specialisation,  family  situation,  the  distance 
from the judge’s place of residence to the court or chamber of the court to which the judge is 
transferred,  the  judge’s  opinion  and  arguments  concerning  possible  transfer  and  other 
essential facts shall be evaluated22. The judiciary considers that the safeguards introduced are 
adequate  to  ensure  respect  for  the  principles  of  irremovability  of  judges  and  judicial 
independence23. It should be recalled that, in line with European standards, transfers against 
the will of the judge may be permissible only in exceptional cases24.  

Initiatives to strengthen the anti-corruption environment in the judiciary continue to be 
implemented25. The Special Investigation Service (STT) conducted an analysis on possible 
corruption risks regarding the system of allocation of cases, formation of judicial panels, and 
formation  of  selection  panels  in  the  Supreme  Court26.  In  the  sequence  of  this  study,  the 
Judicial  Council  and  the  National  Courts  Administration  (NCA)  are  implementing  the 

18   Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania; Input 

from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 4.  

19   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47.  The 
Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that the rules on appointment decisions cannot give rise 
to reasonable doubts as to judges’ neutrality and imperviousness to external factors (Court of Justice of the 
European Union, judgments of 20 April 2021, Repubblika, C-896/19, para. 57; 19 November 2019, A.K. and 
Others  (Independence  of  the  Disciplinary  Chamber  of  the  Supreme  Court),  C‑585/18,  C‑624/18  and 
C‑625/18, paras 134 and 135, and of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of judges to the Supreme 
Court – Actions), C‑824/18, para. 123. 

20   Art. 69(1).  
21   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 5. 
22   Article 63 (6)(8), Law on Courts. 
23   Information received from the Council for the Judiciary in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
24   Venice Commission, Independence of the Judicial System, Part I, CDL-AD(2010)004, The Independence of 
Judges,  para. 43. According to the Court of Justice of the  European Union, transfers  without consent  may 
only be ordered on legitimate grounds, in particular relating to distribution of available resources to ensure 
the  proper  administration  of  justice  and  should  be  legally  challengeable  in  a  procedure  fully  safeguarding 
rights  of  defence  (Judgment  of  6  October 2021,  Case  C-487/19,  W.Z.  (Chamber  of  Extraordinary  Control 
and Public Affairs of the Supreme Court – Appointment), ECLI:EU:C:2021:798, para. 118). 

25   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
26   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. 

5 

 
                                                 
recommendations addressed to them, and continue to report to the STT on the progress of the 
implementation27.  The  NCA  has  also  prepared  drafts  of  the  Judicial  Corruption  Prevention 
Programme and of the plan for its implementation, which have been submitted to the STT for 
comments. On 25 February 2022, the branch action plan for the prevention of corruption in 
the Lithuanian judicial system for 2022–2025 and a plan for measures for its implementation 
for 2022–2023 were approved by the Judicial Council28. The central entity responsible for the 
creation  of  an  environment  resistant  to  corruption  in  the  entire  judicial  system  has  been 
established, and operates within the NCA29. Draft guidelines on the management of conflicts 
of interest for judges and assistant judges are also being prepared by the Chief Official Ethics 
Commission, in coordination with the Judicial Council30. 

Questions  regarding  the  respect  for  professional  secrecy  of  lawyers  remain  under 
judicial review. As referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report31, concerns regarding alleged 
control of communications between lawyers and their clients led the Bar Association to bring 
an  application  before  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights.  Following  the  submission  of 
written  observations  by  the  parties,  the  case  is  still  pending32.  The  appeal  submitted  to  the 
Supreme Administrative Court, referred to in the 2021 Rule of Law Report33 was dismissed 
and the administrative court proceedings were discontinued on 6 October 2021, as there had 
already been adopted a final domestic court decision made in relation to the dispute between 
the  same  parties,  in  relation  to  the  same  subject  matter  and  on  the  same  grounds.  The  Bar 
Association  submitted  a  plea  to  reopen  the  case34,  which  was  rejected  by  the  Supreme 
Administrative Court by final decision of 25 May 2022, based on the lack of legal grounds. In 
line with European standards, all necessary measures should be taken to ensure the respect of 
the confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship35. 

Quality  

A new Development Programme for the justice system was approved in 2021. In October 
2021,  the  Government  approved  the  development  programme  for  the  period  2021-203036. 
The  programme,  which  focuses  on  two  main  areas  –  improving  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness  of  the  justice  system  and  improving  the  efficiency  of  the  penal  enforcement 
system, identifies  the possible root causes of inefficiencies, and establishes tools to address 
them.  Stakeholders  are  involved  both  in  the  identification  of  the  problems  and  in  the 
implementation of the tools.  

27   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8. 
28   Resolution No. 13P-46- (7.1.2.). 
29   The central entity operates from 1 March 2022. 
30   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8 
31   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
32   Application no. 64301/19. See contribution from the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) 

for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 42. 

33   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
34   Contribution  from  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 42. 

35   Recommendation No. R(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of 

exercise of the profession of lawyer, para. 6. 

36   Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice System Development Programme (Resolution of the 

Government No. 861, of 20 October 2021). 

6 

 
                                                 
Discussions regarding the criteria for allocating budget to courts continue. As described 
in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report37,  the  Judicial  Council  has  raised  concerns  regarding  the 
allocation  of  funds  to  the  judiciary  and  the  criteria  thereto.  While  no  relevant  changes 
occurred  during  the  reporting  period,  the  executive  has  addressed  the  issue  that  the  current 
funding  allocation  model  is  not  linked  to  the  legal  status  and  needs  of  the  courts  as 
independent authorities in the Justice System Development Programme38. In this context, the 
National Courts Administration has been tasked with exploring best practices and alternative 
solutions to the current funding model. The President of the Republic has also acknowledged 
that the salaries of judges are low, in line with concerns expressed by stakeholders39. To be 
noted that, while the total expenditure on law courts has registered a slight increase in 2020, it 
remains comparatively low40. 

Amendments  to  the  judicial  map  are  under  discussion.  In  2021,  the  Parliament  started 
discussing  the  amendments  to  the  Law  on  Courts,  the  Law  on  Administrative  Proceedings 
and  the  Law  on  Establishment  of  Administrative  Courts  submitted  by  the  President  of  the 
Republic, which propose the reorganisation of the system of regional administrative courts41. 
The objective of the amendments under discussion is  to  continue the reform of the judicial 
map  launched  in  201842,  with  the  aim  of  equalising  the  workload  and  conditions  of  judges 
and  court  staff,  and  increase  judicial  efficiency.  Discussion  of  the  draft  amendments  will 
continue in the Parliament in 2022. It is important that these amendments take into account 
European standards regarding judicial maps43.  

Changes  to  the  legal  aid  system  remain  under  preparation.  As  referred  to  in  the  2021 
Rule of Law Report44, the Government intends to implement a project aimed at improving the 
quality  of  the  legal  aid  system.  To  this  end,  a  feasibility  study  to  assess  the  efficiency  and 
quality  of  the  state-guaranteed  legal  aid  system  is  being  carried  out45.  Based  on  the 
conclusions  of  the  study,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  intends  to  propose  changes  to  the  current 
legislative  framework46.  Stakeholders  report  concerns  regarding  the  low  remuneration 
currently  provided  to  lawyers47,  which  deters  lawyers  from  participating  in  the  legal  aid 
system48.  According  to  European  standards,  Member  States  should  ensure  an  appropriate 
level of remuneration for legal aid providers49. 

37   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5. 
38   2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Lithuania,  p.  5. Problem  1.2  – 
‘The current funding allocation model is not linked to the legal status and needs of the courts as independent 
public authorities’. 

39   Contribution from the European Association of Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 2 and 15. 
40   Figures 34 and 35, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
41   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
42   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 4. 
43   CEPEJ, Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps to Support Access to Justice  within a Quality 
judicial  System,  CEPEJ  (2013)7Rev1  (criteria  for  judicial  maps,  indicators,  implementation  of  revised 
judicial maps, impact measuring). 

44   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5. 
45   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 10.  
46   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
47   The hourly rate is currently fixed at EUR 20/hour. 
48   Information received from the Bar Association in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
49   Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the efficiency and the effectiveness of 

legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law, CM(2021)36, para. 22. 

7 

 
                                                 
Digitalisation  of  the  justice  system  continues  to  be  promoted.  As  referred  to  in  the 
previous editions of the Rule of Law Report50, the use of digital tools in the justice system is 
widespread.  Whereas  data  show  that  procedural  rules  are  already  in  place  to  allow  digital 
technology in courts in civil, commercial, administrative and criminal cases51, new legislative 
amendments were adopted regarding the use of videoconferencing tools in criminal, civil and 
administrative cases, in order to ensure the publicity of hearings52. The Judicial Council also 
approved  recommendations  for  the  organisation  of  remote  court  hearings53.  In  2021,  the 
executive allocated funding for the acquisition of laptops and video conferencing equipment 
for  courts54.  Moreover,  secure  electronic  communication  among  courts  and  between  courts 
and other institutions is ensured55, and digital solutions to initiate and follow proceedings are 
available56. Whereas data show that the use of digital technology by the prosecution service is 
not as widespread as in courts57, on 22 March 2022 the Digital Service Portal was launched, 
allowing  private  and  legal  persons,  lawyers  to  submit,  to  receive  the  documents  and  to 
communicate digitally with the pre-trial investigation officers and prosecutors during pre-trial 
investigation58.  While  stakeholders  acknowledge  the  key  role  of  digital  tools  to  ensure  the 
work  of  courts  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  they  also  warned  the  resorting  to  distance 
hearings over a prolonged period may harm the quality of justice59. 

Efficiency 

The justice system continues to present good results in terms of efficiency, although new 
challenges  are  emerging60.  Despite  an  increase  in  the  disposition  time,  it  remains 
comparatively low in first instance, both in civil and  commercial cases61 and administrative 
cases62.  In  higher  instances,  the  disposition  time  decreased  both  in  civil  and  commercial 
cases63 and in administrative cases64. However, while the case backlog in Lithuania remains 
comparatively low, the trend of reduction of backlogs has been interrupted, with more cases 
entering the system than those resolved in 2020, in all categories of cases considered65. 

50   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5; 2020 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 5 

51   Figure 42, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
52   Order  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  of  23  February  2022  No. 1R-58  and  1R-59.  Input  from  Lithuania  for  the 

2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 

53   Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 27. 

54   Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 27. 

55   Figure 44, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
56   Figure 46, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
57   Figure 45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
58   The Lithuanian Government refers that, in criminal procedures, the digital technologies are used much more 
by  prosecution  service  because  all  pre-trial  investigations  are  conducted  using  case  management  system 
(Integrated  Criminal  Procedure  Information  System  (IBPS)  and  the  criminal  case  during  pre-trial  case  is 
completely digital. However, the courts do not use digital case during court hearings stage. 

59   Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Administrative  Judges  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report, 

p. 24. 

60   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 6. 
61   117 days in 2020, from 87 days in 2019, Figure 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
62   112 days in 2020, from 96 days in 2019, Figure 9, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
63   Figure 8, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
64   Figure 10, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
65   Figure 11, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

8 

 
                                                 
Measures to improve the efficiency of the justice system are being implemented.  In the 
context  of  the  initiatives  to  improve  court  efficiency  referred  to  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report66, the Ministry of Justice has prepared draft laws which, if approved, will enable the 
transfer  of  non-judicial  cases  to  other  institutions  (such  as  notaries  and  bailiffs)67.  It  is 
expected  that  these  measures  will  reduce  the  workload  of  courts68.  The  amendments  being 
prepared will ensure judicial review of decisions taken by non-judicial authorities, which is 
essential to safeguard the parties’ rights. These measures, as envisaged, appear to be in line 
with  European  standards69.  The  Judicial  Council  is  being  consulted  in  this  context70.  The 
draft laws were submitted to the Government for consideration71, and it is expected that they 
will be voted Parliament during the spring session. The Judicial Council has also included the 
increase of the efficiency of court activities as one of its strategic directions for 2021-202472. 
The  measures  considered  include  balancing  the  workload  of  judges  and  improving  the 
conditions for the administration of justice73. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The Ministry  of Justice  and the Special  Investigation Service (STT)  are  the main bodies in 
charge of the coordination of anti-corruption preventive measures at national level. The Chief 
Official  Ethics  Commission  supervises  the  institutional  ethics  standards.  Furthermore,  the 
STT is tasked with preparing and implementing certain anti-corruption preventive measures. 
The task to fight against corruption is shared among several authorities. While the STT has 
competences to detect and investigate the most serious corruption-related criminal offenses74, 
the Prosecution Service conducts and coordinates pre-trial investigations.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2021  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  by 
Transparency  International,  Lithuania  scores  61/100  and  ranks  12th  in  the  European  Union 
and 34th globally75. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years76. The 
2022  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  81%  of  respondents  consider 
corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  21%  of  respondents  feel 

66   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 6. 
67   In particular, amendments to the Civil Code of the Republic and to the Code of Civil Procedure. 
68   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
69   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 36. 
70   Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 29. 

71   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15. 
72   Council for the Judiciary, Resolution No. 13P-27-(7.1.2) of 26 February 2021.  
73   Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (ENCJ)  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 

Report, p. 120. 

74   Other  investigation  authorities  are  the  police,  the  State  Border  Guard  Service,  the  Financial  Crime 
Investigation  Service  and  Custom  but  their  competence  is  limited  to  offences  committed  by  one  of  their 
officials.  

75   Transparency  International  (2022),  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2021,  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores  between 79-60), relatively  high (scores between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

76   In 2017 the score was 59, while, in 2021, the score is 61. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

9 

 
                                                 
personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  24%)77.  As  regards 
businesses, 58% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
22%  consider  that  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)78. 
Furthermore, 36% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  34%)79,  while  39%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 29%)80. 

A new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033 was adopted. As referred to in the 2021 Rule of 
Law  Report81,  the  current  anti-corruption  strategic  framework82  will  be  updated  with  the 
adoption of the new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033. The text endorsed by the Government 
is  based  on  three  main  pillars:  education;  prevention;  and  control83.  The  implementation  of 
the  Agenda  will  be  ensured  by  three  four-year  agenda  plans  On  28  June  2022,  Parliament 
approved the new anti-corruption agenda 2022-2033.The STT is also implementing a project 
on  the  effective  implementation  of  the  national  anticorruption  strategy,  to  be  finalised  in 
2023.  The  project  will  assist  the  authorities  in  implementing  the  revamped  anti-corruption 
strategy  and  action  plan,  and  will  support  the  design  and  operationalisation  of  a  system  of 
monitoring and reporting on anti-corruption measures84. 

The  new  law  on  corruption  prevention  aims  at  creating  a  resilient  anti-corruption 
environment. Overall, the law on the Prevention of Corruption85 provides definitions, aims, 
tasks  and  principles,  and  creates  a  system  of  measures  to  ensure  an  anti-corruption 
environment for various entities86. The new amendment to this law that entered into force on 
1  January  2022  extends  the  scope  to  state-owned  enterprises  and  their  subsidiaries87.  This 
amendment  was  welcomed  by  GRECO88.  Public  entities  now  have  the  obligation  to  adopt 
dedicated sector-targeted anti-corruption measures. Therefore, both public and private sector 
entities are now primarily responsible for managing corruption risks. Moreover, this new law 
provides for a specific set of measures to prevent corruption, raise awareness, introduce staff 

77   Special  Eurobarometer  523  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption  perception  and 
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
78   Flash  Eurobarometer  507  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  business  attitudes  towards  corruption  as  is 

updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

79   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022).  
80   Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022).  
81   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 8. 
82   The  Inter-institutional  Action  Plan  Monitoring  Report  (2020)  provides  detailed  information  about  the 
implemented  measures  resulting  from  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Programme.  Out  of  45  planned 
measures, 36 have been implemented, six have been delayed, one has been partially implemented, one has 
not been implemented, and one has been abandoned. 

83   Under the first pillar, specific educational activities as well as awareness campaign will be carried out, with 
the  aim  to  increase  the  anti-corruption  expertise  of  civil  servants.  Under  the  prevention  pillar,  a  more 
effective  management  of  conflict  of  interest,  more  transparency  in  the  lobbying  relations  as  well  as  a 
stronger control mechanism on political party financing will be developed, in order to improve transparency 
in  the  public  administration.  Finally,  the  control  pillar  aims  at  increasing  awareness  and  resilience  against 
corruption in the judiciary. 

84   This project is receiving support through the European Commission’s Technical Support Instrument. 
85   Law No. XIV-471 of 29 June 2021 Amending Law No. IX-904 on the Prevention of Corruption. 
86   The main measures to prevent corruption according to the law are inter alia the corruption risk analysis, anti-
corruption assessment of (draft) legal acts, reporting of corruption-related criminal acts, determination of the 
probability  of  manifestation  of  corruption,  assessment  of  corruption  risk  management  and  vetting 
procedures.  

87   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 19. 
88   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, p. 4. 

10 

 
                                                 
clearance,  as  well  as  obligations  to  declare  private  interests  and  lobbying  activities89.  The 
Special Investigation Service is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Law90.  

The number of investigations and prosecutions of corruption related offences remained 
relatively stable in 2021 in comparison to 2020. In 2021, 376 persons were investigated for 
corruption offences as suspects, 38 persons were convicted for corruption offences (compared 
to  69  in  2020),  and  22  persons  were  convicted  for  corruption  offences  by  a  final  court 
decision. Based on STT data, the number of corruption-related offences increased by 3% in 
2021  compared  to  the  previous  year91.  For  2021,  the  STT  reports  to  have  investigated  six 
high-level and complex corruption cases and three cases involving EU funds92. At the same 
time,  the  legislative  framework  to  investigate  and  prosecute  corruption  offences  was 
strengthened by amending the Code of Criminal Procedure and introducing the possibility to 
carry out procedural activities using digital tools.  

Efforts are being undertaken to improve asset recovery. An Asset Recovery Division has 
been in place since November 2020, with the task of recovering assets of corruption related 
offences. In 2021, there were 10 cases opened (i.e. eight cases for illicit enrichment and two 
cases  for  money  laundering),  with  overall  EUR  2.8  million  seized,  which  amounts  to 
approximately  four  times  the  total  amount  of  assets  seized  in  202093.  The  Asset  Recovery 
Division is also responsible for performing asset tracing, using intelligence tools. In 2021, 16 
asset tracing analyses were carried out on properties and suspicious transactions94. The Asset 
Recovery  Division  cooperates  with  the  National  Asset  Recovery  Office  and  is  planning  to 
expand its cooperation agreements with its counterparts including EU Member States, as well 
as third countries.  

The  STT  is  implementing  measures  to  address  shortcomings  in  public  procurement, 
which  remains  a  high-risk  area  for  corruption.  The  STT  continues  to  analyse  potential 
risks in the public procurement sector and has, since the publication of the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report,  identified  several  weaknesses  in  the  system95.  For  example,  open  negotiations 
procedures were used beyond merely unavoidable and urgent cases and lacked transparency, 
especially  in  the  context  of  public  procurement  during  the  health  crisis.  To  address  these 
shortcomings,  the  STT  proposed  specific  actions,  while  also  supporting  the  idea  of  a  more 
centralised  system  that  could  improve  transparency.  Such  measures  include,  for  instance, 
internal  public  procurement  services,  publishing  of  public 
establishing  rotation 
procurement  decisions,  and  separation  of  functions  in  public  procurement96.  Moreover,  the 
STT is continuing its monitoring of the implementation of COVID-19  pandemic  mitigating 
measures, in particular in the area of public procurement, and is also actively participating in 
the exchange of best practices at international level and sharing knowledge on the corruption 
risks linked to the COVID-19 pandemic97.  

in 

89   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
90   Chapter V, Law No. XIV-471 of 29 June 2021 Amending Law No. IX-904 on the Prevention of Corruption.  
91   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
92   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
93   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
94   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
95   Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 23. 
96   Information received from STT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
97   A specific webinar on ‘COVID-19 vaccination and managing corruption risks’ was organised by the STT on 
behalf of the European anti-corruption and police oversight body (EPAC/EACN), with the participation of 

11 

 
                                                 
 
The  Register  for  Private  Interests  (PINREG)  has  started  to  deliver  positive  results  in 
terms  of  simplification  of  the  process.  More  than  150  000  persons  are  now  obliged  to 
declare interests. The Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service for elected and 
appointed  persons98  was  amended  to  ensure  more  effective  and  quicker  declarations  of 
private interests, prevent corruption and ensure transparency in the public sector. As a result, 
the data entry on PINREG was simplified, and now the system generates declarations using 
data  from  national  databases  and  pre-filled  forms.  In  consequence,  since  the  launch  of 
PINREG, the number of enquiries about the declaration of private interests, the completion of 
the declaration and the use of the PINREG tools increased significantly99. The Chief Official 
Ethics Commission (COEC) now controls and analyses the data quality while the system also 
sends  reminders  whenever  the  data  needs  to  be  declared  or  corrected100.  While  this 
development was overall welcomed by GRECO, it was also noted that the declarations of the 
top  political  officials  should  be  subject  to  a  thorough  accuracy  control  in  a  routine  manner 
and not only in the context of specific investigations101. 

The updated lobbying rules which entered into force in January 2021 are contributing 
to  increased  transparency.  As  described  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report102,  the  law 
provides for a cross declaration scheme where lobbyists, politicians and public servants must 
report their meetings in the Register of Lobbyists maintained by the COEC. This scheme is 
assessed  as  a  positive  step  forward103.  According  to  the  latest  COEC  annual  report,  the 
number of registered lobbyists increased considerably in 2021104. The COEC has continued 
to actively provide persons with training in the topics concerning the lobbying framework105. 
However,  COEC  acknowledges  that  there  is  still  a  need  to  improve  transparent  and  public 
law-making106. 

more  than  70  experts  from  all  EU  Member  States.  The  objective  of  this  webinar  was  to  discuss  potential 
corruption risks in the context of the vaccination campaign, as well as in other high-risk areas related to the 
measures to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

98   The amendment to the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service also changed the name of 
the Law which is now Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests. It was adopted in July 2020. 

99   COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 18. 
100  The PINREG is intended not only for declaring persons, but also for the public, whose members can easily 
search  for relevant declarations of private interests, as  well as  for the  management of  the institution or its 
authorised representatives, who can create in the PINREG the structure of the institution, the list of declaring 
employees,  easily  analyse  the  data  of  their  declarations  of  private  interests,  and  ensure  control  (COEC 
Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 16). 

101  GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, para. 143. 
102  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 8. 
103  Information received from Transparency International in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
104  Overall, 133 lobbyists added to the list, bringing the total number of lobbyists to 255. Of the latter, 120 are 
legal entities and 135 natural persons. According to COEC, this is due to, among others, such as the right of 
legal persons to act as lobbyists (COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 23). 

105  Nearly  2000  persons  took  part  in  the  seminars.  The  training  activities  were  targeted  at  several  types  of 
audiences:  members  of  the  municipal  councils,  other  public  service  employees,  registered  lobbyists, 
potential lobbyists and influencers on law-making. The COEC aimed to familiarise them with the concept of 
legal  and  illegal  lobbying,  involvement  of  lobbyist  in  the  legislative  process,  interaction  and  cooperation 
between  lobbyists  and  public  officials,  and  the  regulatory  novelty  –  influence  over  law-making  (COEC 
Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 7). 

106  For instance, with regard to the activities that are currently not considered lobbying, such as those involving 
persons  in  the  public  sector  that  participate  in  the  activities  of  advisory  collegiate  bodies  (i.e.  councils, 
commissions,  working  parties)  set  up  by  state  and  municipal  institutions  and  agencies  (COEC  Annual 
Activity Report 2021, p. 10). 

12 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
The implementation of the ‘revolving doors’  and  cooling-off provisions continues with 
positive results. ‘Revolving doors’ and cooling-off periods are regulated in the Law on the 
Adjustment of Public and Private Interests (LAPPI)107, which establishes a one-year cooling-
off period108. Additionally, the COEC has the power to derogate from the general rules on a 
case-by-case  basis109.  In  2021,  COEC  examined  358  notifications  regarding  potential 
violation of provisions of the LAPPI by 500 persons110. In the same  year, 60 investigations 
were  opened  and  notifications  in  respect  of  13  persons  were  referred  to  the  head  of  the 
institution  or  agency  in  which  the  person  worked111.  Regarding  the  71  investigations 
concluded in 2021, the COEC found that the provisions of the LAPPI had been breached in 
62% of the cases (44)112. 

Whistleblower  protection  rules  in  place  are  contributing  to  the  investigation  and 
prosecution of corruption related offences. In 2021, the Office of the Prosecutor General 
recognised  43  persons  as  whistleblowers113.  Based  on  the  information  provided  by 
whistleblowers,  10  pre-trial  investigations  were  initiated.  Furthermore,  internal  audits  were 
carried out and breaches were identified in one case. The most frequent types of misconduct 
include false accounting in private companies, abuse of powers, bribery and corruption in the 
public  sector114.  In  December  2021,  an  amendment  to  the  Law  on  the  protection  of 
whistleblowers  was  adopted.  This  amendment  aims  at  transposing  the  Whistleblowers 
Directive  115.In  order  to  further  raise  awareness  on  the  importance  of  protecting 
whistleblowers,  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  organises  public  consultations  with 
private  companies  and  public  bodies116.  These  consultations  provide  specific  guidance  on 
how  to  set  up  and  manage  internal  reporting  channels.  GRECO  recommended  a  dedicated 
training  and  awareness-raising  activities  on  whistleblowing  and 
the  protection  of 
whistleblowers  for  all  levels  of  hierarchy  and  chains  of  command  in  the  Police  and  State 
Border Guard Service117.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

In Lithuania, the legal framework concerning media pluralism and media freedom is based on 
constitutional safeguards and sectorial legislation. The Constitution prohibits censorship and 
monopolisation  of  the  media  and  guarantees  the  right  to  freedom  of  expression  and 
information. The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public is the main media law. 
Legislation to transpose the Audiovisual Media Services Directive has been adopted118. The 
institutional  framework  consists  of  the  Lithuanian  Radio  and  Television  Commission 

107  The  Law  on  the  Adjustment  of  Public  and  Private  Interests,  latest  amendment  entered  into  force  in  July 

2020.  

108  Art. 15 and 17 of the Law of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service.  
109  Art. 18, idem. 
110  COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 32. 
111  COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 33. 
112  COEC Annual Activity Report 2021, p. 35. 
113  According to statistics provided by the Office of the Prosecutor General, 73 decisions were taken, 43 people 
were  recognized as  whistleblowers  while 30 people were  not.  Information received from the  Office  of the 
Prosecutor General in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.  

114  Information  received  from  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor  General  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Lithuania. 

115  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 
116  In 2022, the first consultation took place with the representatives of the Lithuanian Business Confederation.  
117 GRECO Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report, p. 60. 
118  Complete transposition of the AVMSD was notified to the Commission on 27 January 2021. 

13 

 
                                                 
(LRTK),  the  Office  of  the  Inspector  of  Journalist  Ethics  and  the  Public  Information  Ethics 
Association119.  

There have been no significant changes in the legal framework concerning the regulator 
for audio-visual media services. Financial and human resources of the LRTK are considered 
adequate  and  have  remained  stable,  especially  since  its  budget  is  funded  by  fees  collected 
from the market players rather than allocations from the state budget decided each year. No 
attempts by public or private parties to interfere in the independent functioning of the LRTK 
have been reported120. The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM 2022) reports a very low risk for 
the independence and effectiveness of the media authority121. 

Legislation is in preparation to improve the effectiveness and impartiality of media self-
regulatory bodies. Following public discussions about the effectiveness  and impartiality of 
the Public Information Ethics Commission; the composition of the Public Information Ethics 
Association; and the extent to which the functioning of media self-regulation bodies should 
be prescribed by law, on 19 May 2021 the Parliament established a working group tasked to 
review  the  current  institutional  framework  and  suggest  legislative  improvements.  The 
mandate  of  the  working  group  extends  until  30  June  2022122.  Stakeholders  have  expressed 
different opinions about the desired direction of the improvements. Some suggested that few 
changes are needed and that the public service broadcaster should rejoin the self-regulatory 
structure.  Others  argued  for  better  representation  of  NGOs,  academia,  journalists  and 
business  associations,  as  well  as  new  requirements  to  increase  the  professionalism  of  the 
Ethics Commission. These requirements would provide for its members to have a substantial 
prior experience in the media sector123. 

To  enhance  media  ownership  transparency,  the  Ministry  of  Culture  has  launched  a 
publicly  available  Information  System  of  Producers  and  Disseminators  of  Public 
Information.  The  system,  called  ‘VIRSIS’  and  envisaged  by  the  Law  on  the  Provision  of 
Information  to  the  Public  and  Strategic  Directions  of  the  Public  Information  Policy  2019-
2022, provides data on media owners and amounts of funds obtained from public bodies124. 
In  line  with  the  general  requirements  for  the  websites  and  mobile  applications  of  state  and 
municipal institutions and bodies, as of 2022 all websites of public bodies have to contain a 
link to the VIRSIS125. According to the MPM 2022, media ownership transparency is at low 
risk126.  While  news  media  concentration  is  very  high,  Lithuanian  law  does  not  provide  for 
specific rules on market concentration in the media sector127. 

The authorities  have reduced the fees  payable by audiovisual  media  and radio  service 
providers.  The  Law  on  the  Provision  of  Information  to  the  Public  guarantees  editorial 
independence  by  prohibiting  to  exert  influence  on  media,  their  owners  and  journalists  with 

119  Lithuania ranks 9th in the 2022 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 28th in 

the previous year.  

120  Information received from LRTK in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
121  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Lithuania,  p.  11.  Nevertheless,  MPM  2022  refers  to 

several recent ‘potentially political’ appointments of the members of LRTK. 

122  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29. 
123  Information received from the Public Information Ethics Association and Lithuanian Radio and Television 

(LRT) in the context of the country visit to Lithuania.  

124  See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 11. 
125  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 29. 
126  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 12. 
127  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 12-13. 

14 

 
                                                 
the objective of obtaining incorrect or biased reporting128. The Law also sets out the types of 
media activities that are subject to licensing, such as TV or radio broadcasting, and the main 
principles of licensing, such as organising tenders and giving priority to entities undertaking 
to ensure the provision of truthful and impartial information. It further establishes safeguards 
against the control of media by individuals with links to third countries not belonging either 
to the EU or NATO and that are deemed to threaten national security129. Audiovisual media 
service providers and radio broadcasters are required to pay fees to the LRTK and an annual 
fee which is transferred to the Public Information Ethics Commission. Following complaints 
from the companies concerned about the high financial burden, the LRTK proposed lowering 
the annual fees. On 25 April 2022, the Ministry of Culture made the necessary amendments 
to lower the fees130. In addition, the size of the Press, Radio and TV Fund has been increased 
by EUR 0.5 million (to EUR 3.2 million) for the year 2022131. 

Robust  legal  safeguards  ensure  the  independence  of  Lithuanian  public  service  media. 
State advertising is allocated to media under the public procurement rules and, in the case of 
production  of  TV  and  radio  programmes,  under  the  specific  rules  adopted  by  the 
Government.  In  line  with  the  public  procurement  rules,  ‘prior  serious  professional 
misconduct’  can  be  used  by  a  purchasing  entity  as  grounds  for  eliminating  a  media  outlet 
from  the  procurement  procedure132.  The  Law  on  Lithuanian  National  Radio  and  Television 
contains  specific  safeguards  for  the  independence  of  public  service  media  (LRT).  In 
particular, the ‘Council’133 is entrusted with representing the whole society in its management 
supervision activities. The term of office of Council members does not coincide with those of 
the different appointing institutions and bodies. Also, the members of the Council cannot be 
members  of  political  parties  and  cannot  be  removed  from  the  office  before  the  end  of  the 
term,  save  on  the  limited  grounds  specified  in  the  Law.  The  LRT’s  Director  General  is 
selected through a public competition and can be dismissed only by a two thirds’ majority of 
the members of the Council. The LRT is financed from fixed shares of tax income. Its annual 
report is prepared by the Director General and submitted to the Parliament by the Council134. 
According  to  the  MPM  2022,  both  ‘state  regulation  of  resources  and  support  to  the  media 
sector’ and ‘independence of public service media governance and funding’ are at low risk135. 

There are concerns that the authorities’ interpretation of data protection  rules has led 
to restrictions on journalists’ access to information136. In particular, there are instances of 

128  Art. 7 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. 
129  Arts. 22 and 31 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. 
130  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 30 and information available on the website of the 
Ministry of Culture - https://lrkm.lrv.lt/lt/naujienos/audiovizualiniu-ziniasklaidos-paslaugu-teikejams-mazes-
metines-imokos. 

131  Information received from the Ministry of Culture in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
132  Art. 46 of the Public Procurement Law. 
133  The Council forms the strategy of the LRT programming and LRT website, supervises the implementation 
of  the  LRT’s  mission  and  approves  the  annual  income  and  spending  by  LRT  administration.  The  Council 
comprises twelve members prominent in social, scientific and cultural fields, appointed for a six-year term. 
Four  members  are  appointed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  four  by  the  Seimas  (two  are 
chosen  from  the  candidates  put  forth  by  the  opposition  in  the  parliament),  while  the  Lithuanian  Science 
Council, the Lithuanian Education Council, the Lithuanian Creative Artists Association and the Lithuanian 
Bishops’ Conference delegate one member each. https://apie.lrt.lt/en/management/lrt-council 

134  Information received from LRT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
135  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Lithuania, p. 15. 
136  According  to  Art.  3  of  the  2009  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Access  to  Official  Documents,  any 
limitation  to  the  right  of  access  to  official  documents,  such  as  a  limitation  aiming  to  protect  privacy  and 
other legitimate private interests, should be set down precisely in law, be necessary in a democratic society 

15 

 
                                                 
 
journalists having to enforce their right to information through courts. By the time a judgment 
is  issued,  the  information  has  often  become  outdated137.  In  a  case  that  attracted  public 
attention,  the  Office  of  the  Inspector  of  Journalist  Ethics  decided  that  a  media  service 
provider had violated personal data protection rules by disclosing in its publication the names 
of  and  the  kinship  between  a  head  of  a  company  that  won  a  public  procurement  and  an 
employee  of  the  procuring  municipal  company138.  Initially,  in  October  2021,  the  Supreme 
Administrative  Court  of  Lithuania  upheld  that  decision139.  Following  a  wide  public  debate 
and protests by the media, the judicial proceedings were renewed and the earlier court ruling 
was reversed in February 2022140. Moreover, the Law on the Provision of Information to the 
Public  was  amended  in  December  2021  to  broaden  the  definition  of  a  public  person141, 
making  access  to  and  publication  of  information  about  such  persons  easier.  In  addition, 
concerns  were  expressed  about  the  pressure  on  an  investigative  journalism  project  by  the 
State  Data  Protection  Inspectorate142.  The  Office  of  the  Inspector  of  Journalist  Ethics  is 
taking part in an EU-funded project143 aimed at solving this issue through practical measures, 
such as roundtable discussions and guidance. The Ministry of Justice has launched a series of 
targeted public consultations on the regulation of personal data protection. One of them was 
dedicated to the application of data protection rules to media144. 

While  the  professional  environment  for  journalists  continues  to  be  largely  safe, 
journalists’ access to information and online threats against journalists remain an issue. 
Since the publication of the 2021 Rule of Law Report, no new alerts have been published for 
Lithuania on the Council of Europe’s Platform  to  promote the protection of journalism  and 
safety  of  journalists145,  or  the  Mapping  Media  Freedom  platform146,  and  the  country  has 
significantly  improved  its  ranking  in  the  Reporters  without  Borders’  World  Press  Freedom 
Index147. In 2021, the work of journalists was restricted by the Ministry of Internal affairs at 
the border with Belarus148 for a few months, without however issuing a decree or proposing 
legislative changes. The matter was solved through direct exchanges between journalists and 

and be proportionate to the stated objective; access to information contained in an official document should 
not be refused if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure; parties to the Convention are encouraged 
to  consider  setting  time  limits  beyond  which  the  limitations  to  the  right  of  access  to  official  documents 
would no longer apply. 

is 

available 

137  Information received from LRT in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
138  The decision has not been published. 
139  Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case No. eA-2398-525/2021. The ruling of the 
Courts: 
Information 

Court 
https://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=916676bf-fc3a-4554-839d-3ef4ba619270. 
140  Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 3 February 2022, Case No. eA-51-822/2022. The ruling of the 
Courts: 
Information 

Court 
https://liteko.teismai.lt/viesasprendimupaieska/tekstas.aspx?id=1aa9816e-b92f-470c-9fe2-83ee67b436bd. 
141  Law  No  XIV-867  of  23  December  2021,  available  in  the  Information  System  of  Lithuanian  Parliament: 
https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/34230bb066f711ecb2fe9975f8a9e52e?jfwid=-1ckebls2nk. 

Lithuanian 

Lithuanian 

available 

System 

System 

the 

the 

of 

of 

in 

in 

is 

142  Media Freedom Rapid Response, Open Letter of 27 January 2022. 
143  Connecting  not  conflicting:  removing  the  tension  between  personal  data  protection  and  freedom  of 
expression  and  information,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-
participate/org-details/999999999/project/101005477/program/31076817/details. 

144  Information  available  on 

the  website  of 

the  Ministry  of  Justice:  https://tm.lrv.lt/lt/struktura-ir-

kontaktai/administracine-informacija/viesosios-konsultacijos/vykstancios-viesosios-konsultacijos-1. 
145  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Lithuania. 
146  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, Mapping Media Freedom, Lithuania country profile.  
147  See footnote 119. 
148  See Section IV. 

16 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
the  competent  authorities149.  Online  threats  and  harassment  on  social  media  networks, 
especially  directed  at  investigative  journalists  and  those  who  cover  protests,  remains  an 
issue150.  In  order  to  tackle  the  problem  of  Strategic  Lawsuits  against  Public  Participation 
(SLAPPs),  legislative  amendments  to  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  and  the  Criminal  Code 
have been prepared. The former provides a new possibility of early dismissal of a lawsuit in 
case  a  court  establishes  that  it  may  be  categorised  as  a  SLAPP.  The  amendment  to  the 
Criminal  Code  revises  the  criminal  liability  for  defamation,  in  order  to  strengthen  the 
protection  of  journalists  and  other  disseminators  of  public  information  from  unjustified 
prosecution151. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Lithuania  is  a  representative  democratic  republic  with  a  directly  elected  President  and  a 
unicameral Parliament (Seimas). The Constitutional Court in charge of constitutional review 
of  enacted  legislation  and  of  the  acts  of  the  President  and  the  Government  (a  posteriori 
control).  The  Parliament,  the  President,  the  Government,  and  a  group  of  at  least  50 000 
citizens have the right of legislative initiative. The Parliamentary Ombudspersons are tasked 
with protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

The  project  aiming  at  improving  the  quality  of  law-making  is  being  implemented.  As 
noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report152, the Ministry of Justice is carrying out a project to 
improve the quality of legislation initiated by the Government. In this context,  amendments 
were  introduced  to  the  recommendations  for  drafting  legislation153.  Moreover,  as  the 
programme also aims at eliminating outdated or disproportionate regulation, a methodology 
for ex post evaluation of the impact of existing legislation was adopted in May 2021. It is to 
be noted that the quality of law-making and frequent changes to the law are the most stated 
concern  about  effectiveness  of  investment  protection  among  companies  in  Lithuania 
(39%)154.  

The  Constitutional  Court  is  reviewing  several  measures  adopted  in  the  context  of  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The nationwide situation of emergency declared by the Government 
and  referred  to  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report155  was  lifted  on  1  May  2022.  Restrictive 
measures  have  gradually  been  withdrawn.  Whereas  the  Constitutional  Court  had  found 
admissible the petition by 36 members of Parliament to examine the constitutionality of the 
requirement of the ‘Certificate of opportunities’156, it also adopted a decision to dismiss the 
proceedings,  as  it  found  that  they  were  no  longer  needed,  following  the  Government’s 
decision  to  abolish  the  challenged  regulation157.  Three  other  cases  concerning  COVID-19-
related measures are currently pending before the Constitutional Court158, and the decision on 

149  Information received from Freedom House and Lithuanian Journalists’ Union in the context of the country 

visit to Lithuania. 

150  Information  received  from  LRT  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Lithuania  and  the  Reporters  without 

Borders 2022 World Press Freedom Index. 

151  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31. 
152  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12. 
153  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 32. 
154  Figure 55, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
155  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12. 
156  Certificates of vaccination, recovery or negative test result. 
157  Constitutional Court, decision of 9 February 2022, Case No 21/202.  
158  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 

17 

 
                                                 
admissibility  is  pending  for  the  fourth  one.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  not  received  any 
individual requests for constitutionality review of COVID-19-related measures159.  

On  1  January  2022,  Lithuania  had  16  leading  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation160.  While  Lithuania’s  rate  of  leading  judgments 
from the past 10 years that remain pending was at that time at 24%, the average time that the 
judgments  have  been  pending  implementation  was  3  years  and  9  months161.  The  oldest 
leading  judgment,  pending  implementation  for  14  years,  concerns  the  lack  of  legislation 
governing  the  conditions  and  procedures  relating  to  gender  reassignment162.  On  21  April 
2022,  Parliament  adopted  in  the  second  vote  the  constitutional  amendment  aimed  at 
implementing the European Court of Human Rights judgment in case Paksas v. Lithuania163, 
which  remains  under  enhanced  supervision164.  The  case  is  included  in  the  indicative  list  of 
cases  for  the  1443rd  meeting  of  the  Department  for  the  Execution  of  Judgments  of  the 
European Court of Human Rights (September 2022). On 1 July 2022, the number of leading 
judgments pending implementation has increased to 19165.  

A  state  of  emergency  was  declared  in  2021  in  response  to  the  instrumentalisation  of 
migrants by Belarus.  From November 2021 until January 2022, the Parliament  declared  a 
state of emergency at the state border with Belarus, covering the border zone, as well as areas 
surrounding  migrant  reception  facilities166.  The  state  of  emergency  included  certain 
restrictions  on  the  rights  of  individuals  such  as  migrants’  right  to  receive  and  disseminate 
information, and the right to travel within the territory167. During the earlier phase of the state 
of  emergency,  concerns  were  raised,  including  by  the  UN  Committee  against  Torture168, 
regarding  restrictions  on  the  monitoring  by  the  National  Human  Rights  Institution,  non-

159  Information received from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Lithuania. 
160  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

161  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 54. 

162  Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11 September 2007, L. v. Lithuania, 27527/03, pending 

implementation since 2008. 

163  Judgment of European Court of Human Rights of 6 January 2011, Paksas v. Lithuania, 34932/04. The case 
concerns  the  violation  of  the  right  to  free  elections  due  to  the  permanent  and  irreversible  nature  of  the 
applicant’s  disqualification  from  standing  for  elections  to  Parliament  as  a  result  of  his  removal  from 
presidential office following impeachment proceedings conducted against him. 

164  CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-18.  See  also  Department  for  the  Execution  of  Judgments  of  the  European 

Court of Human Rights, Press release of 21 April 2022. 

165  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
166  Resolution  No  XIV-617  of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  of  9  November  2021.  The  state  of 
emergency  was  initially  declared  for  the  period  of  one  month,  starting  on  10  November  2021,  and  was 
further extended until 14 January 2022. 

167  Resolution  No  XIV-617  of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  of  9  November  2021.  See  also  Press 
release  of  the  Lithuanian  Parliament  of  9  November  2021.  On  30  June  2022,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union ruled on an urgent preliminary ruling proceeding regarding some of the restrictive measures 
applied  during 
(Judgment  of  30  June  2022,  Case  C-72/22,  M.A., 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:505). 

the  state  of  emergency 

168  Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe – Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 2. 

18 

 
                                                 
governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  and  journalists  of  the  situation  of  asylum  seekers, 
refugees  and  migrants  at  the  border  zones.  Stakeholders  report  that  authorities  were 
responsive to the criticism, and that activities of NGOs were gradually facilitated in the areas 
in question169.  

The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons lacks the resources needed to fulfil its 
mandate. The Office of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons, accredited with ‘A’ status by the 
United  Nations  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions,  has  an  extensive 
mandate,  which  covers  the  investigation  of  complaints  regarding  activities  of  officials, 
institutions  and  agencies  both  at  state  and  municipal  level,  while  also  acting  as  National 
Human Rights Institution and National Preventive Mechanism against Torture. However, the 
Office has raised concerns that the funding allocated is not sufficient to efficiently carry out 
its mandate170. The Office currently counts 38 employees, significantly below the maximum 
number  of  positions  (50)  approved  by  the  Board  of  Parliament171.  The  lack  of  specialised 
personnel also limits the capacity to implement the  tasks stemming from the mandate172. In 
December 2021, the UN Committee against Torture expressed concerns about the shortage of 
staff of the Office assigned to tasks and activities related to the mechanism and recommended 
that Lithuania ensure the necessary financial and human resources for the performance of its 
work173.  According 
should  provide 
Ombudsinstitutions with adequate, sufficient and sustainable resources to allow them to carry 
out their mandate in a fully independent manner174. 

standards,  Member  States 

to  European 

Parliament is discussing amendments to the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons 
where concerns have been voiced over a possible impact on the effective functioning of 
that institution. Currently, the law allows the investigation of complaints to continue beyond 
the time-limit of three months, when required by the complexity of the case175. The draft law 
tabled in Parliament proposes to subject the examination of complaints to strict deadlines176. 
The  Office  of  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons  has  raised  concerns  that  this  amendment 
could limit its independence177. In particular, that this amendment would limit its capacity to 
thoroughly  investigate  complaints,  to  identify  the  causes  of  the  infringements  and  to  take 
action to remedy them. In face of this criticism, Parliament has postponed the discussion of 
this draft law to the spring session, without, however, removing it from the agenda178. 

169  Information  received  from  NGO  Coalition  and  Freedom  House  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Lithuania. 

170  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 37. 
171  Pursuant  to  Art.  25(3)  of  the  Law  on  the  Parliamentary  Ombudspersons,  the  Board  of  Parliament  shall 

approve the maximum number of positions of the Office. 
172  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 
173  Contribution from the UN Human Rights Regional Office for Europe – Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law 

Report, p. 2. 

174  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2019)6  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the 

development of the Ombudsman institution, para. 6. 

175  Law No. NoVIII-950, of 3 December 1998. 
176  Draft Law No. XIIIP-5306, amending Arts. 18 and 22 of Law No. NoVIII-950. 
177  Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 37. 
178  In line with European standards, Member States shall refrain from taking any action aiming at or resulting in 
any hurdles to the effective functioning of the Ombudsperson institution (Venice Commission, Principles on 
the Protection and Promotion of the Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’), CDL-AD(2019)005, 
para 24). 

19 

 
                                                 
Civil society remains active, despite challenges. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, 
stakeholders report that the Government increased coordination and collaboration with civil 
society  organisations  (CSOs),  namely  by  creating  regular  working  groups  and  round-table 
discussions to identify main challenges and lessons learned and preparing recommendations 
on how to organise volunteer activities during extreme situations, in line with the identified 
national  and  international  best  practices179.  CSOs  were  also  granted  financial  support  to 
overcome  the  challenges  posed  by  the  pandemic180.  Although  the  civil  society  space  in 
Lithuania continues to be considered open181, isolated cases of threats to members of NGOs 
and attempts to limit the operation of NGOs have been reported by stakeholders182. 

Amendments  to  the  Law  on  Development  of  NGOs  are  being  discussed  following  a 
decision of the Constitutional Court. The Law on Development of NGOs is the legal basis 
for  a  National  NGO  fund,  aiming  to  provide  sustainable  institutional  support  for  NGOs183. 
However,  as  a  consequence  of  the  Constitutional  Court’s  ruling  stating  that  the  laws  on 
programmes’  financing  must  not  set  a  specific  amount  of  state  budget  funds  allocated  to 
them184,  amendments  to  the  law  were  prepared.  These  amendments  are  currently  pending 
before  Parliament185.  In  parallel  to  the  legislative  amendments,  the  National  NGO  Fund, 
operating  under  the  Ministry  of  Social  Security  and  Labour,  launched  its  funding 
programmes  in  2021186.  Their  main  priorities  are  strengthening  the  institutional  capacity  of 
NGOs187,  and  extending  their  opportunities  to  participate  in  crisis  and  emergency 
management188. 

179  Franet (2022), Country research – Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 

fundamental rights – Lithuania, p. 6. 

180  The  Ministry  of  Social  Security  and  Labour  dedicated  EUR  3.5  million  in  subsidies  to  CSOs  that  provide 
social services to society during quarantine, allocated to 500 NGOs; the Ministry of Education, Science and 
Sport  granted  EUR  49  980  to  one  non-governmental  organisation  coordinating  the  activities  of  volunteers 
providing assistance to educational establishments affected by the distance learning effects of the COVID-19 
pandemic. 

181  Rating  given  by  Civicus,  Lithuania;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

182  Contribution from Civil Society Europe for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3. 
183  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania, p. 12. 
184  Constitutional  Court,  decision  of  3  November  2020,  Case  No  8/2019  on  compliance  of  the  provisions  of 
legal  acts,  which  regulates  financing  certain  programs,  funds  or  institutions,  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
Republic of Lithuania. 

185  Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania, 17 December 2021. 
186  Franet (2022), Country research – Legal environment and space of civil society organisations in supporting 

fundamental rights – Lithuania, p. 4. 

187  Total amount EUR 973 000. 
188  Total amount EUR 417 000. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

CEPEJ  (2013),  Revised  Guidelines  on  the  Creation  of  Judicial  Maps  to  Support  Access  to  Justice 
within a Quality judicial System, CEPEJ(2013)7Rev1. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Lithuania https://monitor.civicus.org/country/lithuania/. 

Civil  Society  Europe  (2022),  Contribution  from  Civil  Society  Europe  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law 
Report. 

COEC (2021), Annual Activity Report 2021. 

Constitutional Court, decision of 3 November 2020, Case No 8/2019. 

Constitutional Court, decision of 9 February 2022, Case No 21/202. 

Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (2022), Contribution from the Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe (CCBE) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2000),  Recommendation  No.  R(2000)21  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe  on  the  freedom  of  exercise  of  the  profession  of 
lawyer. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2019),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2019)6  on  the 
development of the Ombudsman institution. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2021), Guidelines on the efficiency and the effectiveness 
of legal aid schemes in the areas of civil and administrative law, CM(2021)36. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2021),  Decision  CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-18  on 
H46-18 Paksas v. Lithuania. 

Council of Europe: Consultative Council of European Judges (2016),  Opinion No. 19(2016), on the 
Role of Court Presidents. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Lithuania https://fom.coe.int/en/alerte?years=2022&typeData=1&time=1653914309287. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010),  Report on the Independence of the Judicial System, 
Part I, The Independence of Judges (CDL-AD(2010)004). 

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2013),  Opinion  on  the  Draft  Amendments  to  three 
Constitutional Provisions relating to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme State Prosecutor and the 
Judicial Council of Montenegro (CDL-AD(2013)028). 

Council  of  Europe: Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  Protection  and  Promotion  of  the 
Ombudsman Institution (‘The Venice Principles’) (CDL-AD(2019)005). 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  19  November  2019,  A.K.  and  Others 
(Independence  of  the  Disciplinary  Chamber  of  the  Supreme  Court),  C‑585/18,  C‑624/18  and 
C‑625/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982, paras 134 and 135. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 2 March 2021, A.B. and Others (Appointment of 
judges to the Supreme Court – Actions), C‑824/18, ECLI:EU:C:2021:153. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 20 April 2021,  Repubblika v Il-Prim Ministru, 
C-896/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:311, para. 57. 

21 

 
Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case C-487/19, W.Z. (Chamber 
of  Extraordinary  Control  and  Public  Affairs  of 
the  Supreme  Court  –  Appointment), 
ECLI:EU:C:2021:798, para. 112. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  30  June  2022,  Case  C-72/22,  M.A., 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:505. 

Department  for the  Execution  of Judgments  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (2022),  Press 
release of 21 April 2022. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

European Association of Administrative Judges (2022), Contribution from the European Association 
of Administrative Judges for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Association  of  Judges  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  European  Association  of  Judges  for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (2022), Mapping Media Freedom. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania.  

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Lithuania.  

European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Commission (2022), EU Justice Scoreboard. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 11 September 2007, L. v. Lithuania, 27527/03. 

European Court of Human Rights of 6 January 2011, Paksas v. Lithuania, 34932/04. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2022), Contribution from the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European University Institute, Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), The Media 
Pluralism Monitor 2022 (MPM2022). 

Franet,  Lithuanian  Centre  for  Social  Sciences  (2022),  Country  research  –  Legal  environment  and 
space of civil society organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Lithuania, Vienna, EU Agency 
for  Fundamental  Rights,  https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-
related.  

GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Report – Evaluation Report on Lithuania on preventing corruption 
and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law  enforcement 
agencies. 

Lithuanian Judicial Council (2021), Resolution No. 13P-27-(7.1.2). 

Lithuanian  Government 
https://www.e-tar.lt/portal/lt/legalAct. 

(2015),  Lithuania  National  Anti-Corruption  Program  2015-2025 

Lithuanian Government (2022), Input from Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

22 

 
Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 6 October 2021, Case No. eA-2398-525/2021. 

Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court, judgment of 3 February 2022, Case No. eA-51-822/2022. 

Media  Freedom  Rapid  Response  (2022),  Open  Letter  of  27  January  2022  –  Lithuania:  State  Data 
the  country 
Protection 
https://www.mfrr.eu/lithuania-state-data-protection-inspectorate-sdpi-must-not-obstruct-journalistic-
activity-in-the-country/. 

(SDPI)  must  not  obstruct 

journalistic  activity 

Inspectorate 

in 

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Justice System Development Programme. 

Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania (2021), Draft Law amending Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the 
Law on the Development of NGOs No XII-717, 17 December 2021. 

Lithuanian Parliament (2021), Press release, 9 November 2021. 

Lithuanian Parliament (2021), Resolution No XIV-617, 9 November of 2021. 

Reporters Without Borders – Lithuania https://rsf.org/en/country/lithuania. 

(2020),  Progress 

STT 
https://www.stt.lt/doclib/iwlpfjmqm2krucnq2u28zyguhkhv7ddy. 

report 

of  National  Anti-corruption  Program 

2015-2025 

Transparency International (2022), Corruption Perceptions Index 2021. 

United Nations Human Rights Regional Office for Europe (2022), Contribution from the UN Human 
Rights Regional Office for Europe on Lithuania for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

23 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Lithuania 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2022 with: 

  Bar Association 
  COEC 
  Constitutional Court  
 
Judicial Council 
  Freedom House 
  Human Rights Monitoring Institute  
  Lithuanian Journalists Union 
  Lithuanian Radio and Television 
  Media Authority – Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania 
  Ministry of Culture  
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice 
  National Courts Administration 
  National NGO Coalition 
  Office of the Prosecutor General 
  Office of the Seimas Ombudspersons  
  Public Information Ethics Association 
  Public Procurement Service 
  Special Investigation Service  
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International Lithuania  

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute ( OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

24